More recent attitudes have focused attention on the negative aspects of the antiquities trade – the looting of sites, the funding of the international trade in drugs and weapons, the proliferation of restitution claims and the continuing appearance of sophisticated fakes. Within the archaeological community in particular there exists a vocal minority in opposition to any trade in antiquities. Dealers are at pains to point out the entirely legitimate trade in objects that have been neither looted nor smuggled and which are in as much demand as ever.

It should be noted that Harris did not bother to get an alternative view and presents a misleading view of those concerned about looting. Archaeologists are calling for restrictions on the trade in recently surfaced antiquities to address the genuine problem of destroyed archaeological contexts.

According to Max Bernheimer, head of Christie’s Ancient Art and Antiquities department, the critical break-off date for the sale of antiquities is 1983, the year that Egypt declared its country’s antiquities to be property of the state and their sale abroad unlawful. At the top end of the market, most objects demand a level of scholarship and experience that can only come through long involvement in the fileld. For this reason, private collectors and museum curators alike will often cultivate relationships with established and trustworthy dealers who not only have the best access to rare works but are often better suited to negotiating the auction room pitfalls associated with this market.

What are the pitfalls associated with the market? Are trustworthy dealers those who do not deal with recently-surfaced antiquities?

And if 1983 is such a crucial date for Bernheimer (though it could be that he was only talking about Egyptian antiquities), he should have no difficulty in deciding what do do with antiquities that first surfaced in 1984, 1992 and 1994.

I have suggested that 1970 would be a much better "benchmark" date for those dealing with antiquities. Perhaps Harris would like to write about that possibility.

Friday, May 28, 2010

G. Max Bernheimer, International Head of Antiquities at Christie's has given a timely interview (May 24, 2010). Among the questions asked was this:

In recent years, the issue of repatriation has garnered attention as institutions like the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Getty Museum have returned artifacts to their source countries. Where does the issue stand today, and what impact does this have on your collectors?

Provenance has always been important, and in light of recent repatriation issues, it has become paramount. In a way these issues have helped the auction business because of the transparency of our operations; buyers can have complete confidence when buying at auction. Everything we do is published, and source countries have the opportunity to review our catalogues long before the date of sale.

Remember that this interview was issued subsequent to the report by Theo Toebosch on May 15.

I have long-argued that provenance is a misused term. Christopher Chippindale and I would argue for the term "collecting history". However, provenance is a term much used by those engaged in the antiquities market. Last June Bernheimer was quoted in a Christie's press release: “Today’s [sc. June 3, 2009] strong results show that wonderful objects with clear provenance continue to perform exceedingly well at auction.” In the accompanying list of the "Top Ten" pieces in the June 2009 auction was lot 120, "An Attic red-figured Pelike, attributed to the Aegisthus painter, circa 480-460 B.C.", that sold for $80,500. Yet subsequent to the sale lot 120 was apparently seized by ICE agents. A second lot, an Apulian situla was seized at the same time; a Corinthian krater had been seized immediately before the sale. How are we to understand Bernheimer's definition of "clear provenance"?

It would be interesting to know the reaction of the buyers of the two pieces (the Apulian situla and the Attic pelike) when they were seized. The events of 2009 rather undermine Bernheimer's statement: "buyers can have complete confidence when buying at auction".

Bernheimer emphasises "the transparency of our [sc. Christie's] operations". He adds "source countries have the opportunity to review our catalogues long before the date of sale". The characteristic of transparency was stated by a spokesperson from Christie's in the wake of the seizure of the two pieces. Indeed the Corinthian krater was seized from Christie's just before the June 2009 sale. It appears that the krater matched an image found in the Medici Dossier.

And in December 2008 a piece of gold jewellery was withdrawn by Christie's after claims had been made by Iraq. John Morton of ICE made the specific point when the jewellery was returned: "These are precisely the types of treasures that ICE's Cultural Property Art and Antiquities unit was established to identify, investigate and return to their rightful owners. We will continue to be vigilant about finding and prosecuting those who would rob a nation for personal gain.".

The December 2008 sale was also reported to have contained Egyptian antiquities that appear to have been removed from the Long Island University's Art Museum.

And a portrait of Marcus Aurelius that was offered by Christie's in June 2004 appeared to have been stolen from Algeria. Looking further back there was the head of Asklepios from Butrint that had apparently passed through Christie's London in 1996.

Antiquities from the Bijbels Museum in Amsterdam were seized from an unspecified New York auction-house in 2009; Sotheby's made it clear that they were not involved while Christie's "were unable to confirm this".

Let me return to transparency. The Christie's catalogue for June 2010 has prompted the possible identification of three pieces with objects illustrated in the Medici Dossier. If provenance is "paramount", as Bernheimer has claimed only this week, please could Christie's state the collecting histories for the three lots? Bernheimer wants "buyers" at Christie's to "have complete confidence when buying at auction". Doubts will remains if he fails to provide "clear provenance" for these three pieces.

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Today I attended the launch of the beta version of the People's Collection Wales / Casgliad y Werin Cymru at the National Museum in Cardiff. (The official launch is due to be in August 2010.) The website includes tours as well as the ability to add data.

One of the aims of the project is to put objects residing in museums back into the spatial contexts. The Collection is far more than archaeology but we were reminded by one of the participants that "History is Hot".

Attention to the same three pieces was given in the New York press on May 25.

I find it hard to believe that Christie's is unaware of the story especially as the collecting history (or "provenance") of one of the pieces has had to be revised to show that it passed through Sotheby's London in 1992. (See Peter Watson's, Sotheby's: Inside Story (1997) [worldcat] for this period.)

In 2009 a spokesperson for Christie's described two separate antiquities as "stolen". Indeed attention was drawn to "the transparency of the public auction system" that had allowed the "identification" to be made.

The posting of public images for the sale of antiquities encourages scrutiny. And scrutiny has raised an issue, or to be more precise three issues, for the June 2010 sale. Possible identifications have been flagged up.

And the dilemma is plain. Does Christie's reject the possibility that the three pieces could be the ones featured in the images from the Medici Dossier? Does Christie's ignore the issue and press ahead regardless? Does Christie's follow the lead of Bonham's in London and withdraw the pieces from sale?

One further option would be to release the full collecting histories (or "provenances") for the three lots for the period from (or before) 1970 to 1984 (lot 112), 1992 (lot 139), and 1994 (lot 104).

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

I would like to look back nearly a year. At the beginning of June 2009 it was reported "U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) today recovered today a Corinthian column krater from Christie's auction house" [press release, June 1, 2009]. The release continued:

"Christie's cooperated fully with ICE Special Agents in New York who, with the assistance of the ICE attaché in Rome, collaborated with Italian authorities to determine that the Corinthian column krater is indeed part of Italy's cultural property and was stolen."

Paul Barford has drawn my attention to Michael H. Miller's article "Digging Up The Past", New York Observer May 25, 2010. In some ways Miller shows that he has a poor grasp of the issues. There are major differences between items that have surfaced on the market since 1970 (the date of the UNESCO Convention) and objects that were acquired by museums well before that benchmark date. (Countries such as Egypt and Greece are, of course, making claims on pieces such as the head of Nefertiti or the Parthenon marbles.)

Miller then turned to the case of recent returns from North American Museums: "Italy has been the most aggressive, successfully demanding the return of objects from both the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Getty". Miller could have added Boston's Museum of Fine Art, The Cleveland Museum of Art, and the Princeton University Art Museum. He uses this to hang the story of Christie's June sale of antiquities: "Now, three pricey ancient Greek items up for sale at Christie's next month threaten to become a part of the messy, murky issues clouding the market." Miller, if he had done his homework, would have noted that three antiquities (a Corinthian krater, an Attic pelike and an Apulian situla) were seized from the same auction-house in 2009.

Miller does remind us of Christie's public position: "As a matter of policy, we do not sell works that we have reason to believe are stolen".

Miller reviews the collecting histories of the three pieces due to be auctioned in June 2010. He could usefully have noted that the Christie's catalogue had not drawn attention to one of the pieces surfacing at Sotheby's (London) in 1992. (The online entry has now been updated.) Why was this part of the collecting history (sometimes called the "provenance") left out?

Miller then turned to the pieces returned to Italy by Shelby White. He adds, "ironically, some of them Greek". Interesting the Attic calyx-krater (known in a fragmentary state from the Medici Dossier) had an Etruscan graffito on its foot indicating its final resting place.

The contrast is made with Sotheby's where there appears to be meticulous care ("due diligence") in the research of the collecting histories for the pieces due to be offered for sale.

But Miller has done his readership a favour. He has reminded us of the "messy, murky issues" that can surround the sale and acquisition of recently-surfaced antiquities.

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Christos Tsirogiannis is undertaking some remarkable research on the scale of looting in countries bordering the Mediterranean. He recently showed me the Polaroid of an Attic red-figured volute-krater with a Dionysiac scene. You can still see mud adhering to parts of the rim. The image comes from the Medici Dossier seized in the Geneva Freeport.

The krater appears to have been ripped from the ground and quickly snapped before (presumably) being cleaned up ("restored") and sold on. The complete nature suggests that it came from a funerary context.

What else was found in the tomb? Was it an inhumation? What was the gender of the primary burial? Or was it a multiple burial? Was this the only pot with a Dionysiac scene?

You may recall that earlier in April it was announced that the Home Office was arranging for the sale of part of the assets of Robin Symes. Later in the month the Home Office directed me to the Ministry of Justice ... who then directed me back to the Home Office. One month on I have just been informed that it is nothing to do with the Home Office ... it is the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS).

Monday, May 24, 2010

The Department of Culture Media and Sport has announced a £61 million cutback on its budget in response to the national deficit. In effect this means a 3% reduction on spending for bodies supported by DCMS. Art Council England's budget is being slashed by £5 million.

The Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) has clearly been hoping to be treated favourably. What will a 3% (or so) reduction mean?

Followers of Looting Matters will know that the images from the Medici Dossier have helped to secure the return of objects from several public and private collections, as well as from at least two dealers. The Polaroids have also caused the withdrawal of several lots from one London auction-house on at least two separate occasions in 2008 and 2010.

The "toxicity" of these desirable antiquities does not come from questions about their authenticity but rather from the route by which they were removed from their archaeological contexts, passed through the market, and into their present collections. Doubters need to read Peter Watson's Sotheby's Inside Story (1997) or (with Cecilia Todeschini) The Medici Conspiracy (2006). Christopher Chippindale and I wrote a review article on the second of the two works for the American Journal of Archaeology (2007) [pdf].

As long as these lovely objects are valued, there rightly will be a market for them. Working in that market will be some crooks and shady characters, just as there have always been and always will be crooked greengrocers who deal in rotten apples. True. But it does not follow that honest and good citizens have to join the wickedness; they can distance themselves and buy good apples elsewhere. What Watson and Todeschini have proved now to exist is not a barrel with a few rotten apples mixed up with good fruit but a criminal business that is corrupt through and through. And the great U.S. museums that have allowed themselves to be sucked into this world are not—let us remember—the private ventures of spivs and con men but public institutions founded to fulfill ethical ideals and given special and generous financial privileges by our society in recognition of their cultural and public merit.

Do people learn from history? Some museums and collectors who have purchased ex-Medici material (sometimes "in good faith") have parted with their acquisitions. Some auction-houses that have been willing to handle ex-Medici material have gained bad publicity.

Douglas L. Yearwood in his Journal of Art Crime review of Vernon Silver's The Lost Chalice (2009) reflected on the impact of the Medici Dossier. He commented on some of the recently surfaced material:

questionable provenance or the lack of legitimacy for one small Greek wine cup produced one of the landmark cases in the history of art crime and put the world on notice that the theft and smuggling of arts would no longer be tolerated by law enforcement and would not be condoned either directly or even subtly by the major galleries, museums and auction houses.

Will dealers act honourably if they realise they are handling ex-Medici material? Will those in the market distance themselves from any such objects?

ImagePolaroid of a torso of youth holding a cockerel from the Medici Dossier.

Friday, May 21, 2010

Lee Rosenbaum, Culturegrrl, is a shrewd observer of the cultural scene in North America. She is a fan of the Met's former director Philippe de Montebello - who can forget her moody rendering of "Philippe Baby"? (still unavailable on iTunes) - and comments on his new role as Special Advisor to the Leon Levy Foundation.

News to me last night was that among the many hats that Professor Philippe now wears is that of consultant ... to the Leon Levy Foundation headed by antiquities collector Shelby White, a major patron of the Met.

You can see him in the photo ..., at a meeting convened by the Levy Foundation on "how best to make available the trove of unpublished information from important ancient world sites excavated under "partage" agreements." Timothy Potts, erstwhile of the Kimbell, now director of the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, is in the top row, second from the left. Philippe, bottom row at the left; White, bottom row, third from left.

The issue of "partage" is one that has been highlighted in recent years by James Cuno.

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Six months ago Sung-Hee Park, the Public Relations Officer for Christie's, drew attention to the way that the "transparency of the public auction system" at Christie's had allowed "two stolen artifacts" to be identified.

It seems that the two pieces in question had featured in the Medici Dossier. Thus it seems that a major auction-house is describing such material (and remember there are some 4000 images from the Medici Dossier) as "stolen".

Washington lobbyist Peter Tompa has now questioned the use of images to identify objects in public sales. He will be unaware that Christie's were asked by a third party on May 11, 2010 about three specific lots in their June 2010 sale. Full Polaroid images similar to those lots were released on May 12, 18, 19after Christie's had replied to the third party.

Three antiquities that had apparently featured in the Medici Dossier were recovered from Christie's New York during 2009. A Corinthian krater, that apparently had surfaced at Sotheby's London in 1985, was recovered just prior to the June sale. (Material that passed through Sotheby's 1985 sales have included two pieces returned from a New York gallery and a New York private collector; a further piece was withdrawn from a sale at Bonham's in London.)

Two pieces that passed through the June sale at Christie's were seized later in the year. They appear to have been an Attic pelike attributed to the Aegisthus painter that had surfaced through the Summa Galleries in the mid-1980s (lot 120), and an Apulian situla that had followed the same route but slightly earlier in 1977 (lot 132). Together they had realised over $120,000.

Sung-Hee Park confirmed that "the transparency of the public auction system combined with the efforts from the U.S. ICE and foreign governments, in this matter, led to the identification of two stolen artifacts".

It is a matter of concern that two auction-houses --- Christie's and Bonham's --- have been willing to offer material from sales that are known to have contained material supplied by Medici and his associates. Why did their due diligence processes fail to identify the potential problem with this particular "provenance"? Auction-houses need to be very wary of antiquities that first appeared at Sotheby's in London during the 1980s and 1990s.

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

There is an image of an Apulian rhyton in the Medici dossier of some 4000 photographs. The piece is in the shape of a goat's head with horns painted white. A crouching Eros, holding a fan in his right hand, is shown on the neck.

This seems similar to lot 104 that is due to auctioned at Christie's next month. The Christie's rhyton surfaced at Sotheby's in New York in 1994. Who consigned it to the sale?

There are major implications if the two rhyta are indeed the same. Was Medici consigning antiquities via New York in the same way that he appears to have done for London? What was the scale of this activity? Where are the pieces now?

Police chief Lefteris Economou said the arrests followed information from culture ministry officials. He provided no details on the identity of the potential buyers or which country the finds had been heading for.

There is a suggestion that the kouroi were found at Tenea, not far from Corinth. The kouros now in Munich (Glytothek no. 168 [Richter no. 73]) was said to have been found there in 1846.

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Two fragmentary marble kouroi dating to the 6th century BC have been recovered in a police raid near Corinth (May 18, 2010, press release [in Greek]). This appears to have been the result of a surveillance operation and involved Austrian nationals. The statues measure 1.82 m and 1.78 m high, and showed evidence of recent breaks. They appear to have come from the same workshop.

The statues will be sent to the National Archaeological Museum in Athens.

Who would have purchased such recently surfaced antiquities? What was their original find-spot? Were the funerary or dedications in a sanctuary? Were they associated with any inscriptions?

It now appears that lot 110 in the June sale of Antiquities does not feature in the Medici Dossier. The reason is simple: Christie's had placed the incorrect image against lot 110. (However, it would be interesting to know the collecting history of the piece prior to it being acquired by the anonymous Japanese private collector in the 1980s.)

During the afternoon the image against lot 110 moved to lot 112 and the image of lot 112 to lot 110.

Lot 112 is a Canosan 'Greek terracotta goddess', dating to the 3rd century BCE. It is valued at $6000 to $8000. The figure rests against a herm.

The present proprietor is not given ("Another Property"). However it is perhaps significant that the piece surfaced at "Anonymous sale; Sotheby's, London, 9-10 July 1984, lot 551" before passing into an anonymous English private collection.

Among the images seized in the Medici Dossier in the Geneva Freeport was this Polaroid of a Canosan terracotta figure. The figure appears to be holding a Medusa mask in its left hand.

The figure seems to be similar to one from an anonymous Japanese private collection that is due to be auctioned at Christie's in June (lot 110).

Who sold the Christie's figure to the Japanese private collector in the 1980s? Who is the anonymous Japanese private collector? Who is the present proprietor ("Another property")? Will Christie's reveal the full and detailed collecting history of this figure?

Monday, May 17, 2010

Theo Toebosch has a short piece in Saturday's NRC Handelsblad (May 15, 2010). He notes three lots (104, 110, 139) from the upcoming sale of antiquities at Christie's that seem to feature in images from the Medici Dossier. Toebosch contacted the press office at Christie's and was told, "we do not sell works that we have reason to believe are stolen". The spokesperson also stated that Christie's adheres strictly to all local and international laws relating to cultural property.

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Recent events have suggested that auction-houses need to be careful when handling material that surfaced in a certain London auction-house in the 1980s and early 1990s. If lots from those sales were consigned by the agents of Giacomo Medici then there is a strong possibility that there could be a Polaroid lurking in the Medici Archive that was seized during the raids on the Geneva Freeport. Wise staff will either conduct ultra-rigorous due diligence searches or pass over the opportunity to sell the object. Yet if there is a declining pool of antiquities from old (i.e. pre-1970) collections, then some auction-houses are likely to take risks and hope that the objects will not be recognised. And the Medici Archive is but one set: remember the images seized from Schinoussa and the Basel warehouses. There may be well some 20,000 objects waiting to be identified.

And this must be a concern for potential buyers. Who would want to spend tens of thousands of dollars for an object that could well turn out to be ex-Medici?

It also records the decision to remove Ioannis Diotis from working on the archive of material seized on Schinoussa. This archive contains evidence that has already helped to bring some material home to Greece.

Ricardo Elia's research on Apulian pottery has meant that I study the appearance of this type of material with additional scrutiny. Among the seven pieces on offer at Christie's Rockefeller Plaza in June 2010 is a rhyton in the form of a goat's head (lot 104). The estimate for $25,000 to $35,000 makes it one of the more expensive Apulian objects.

The rhyton, presently in the collection of an anonymous American private collector, had first surfaced at Sotheby's, New York, 8 June 1994, lot 189.

Who consigned it to Sotheby's in 1994? Who is the present proprietor? What was its collecting history prior to 1994?

Friday, May 7, 2010

Events at Bonhams in April reminded us of the problems that can be caused when auction-houses do not conduct rigorous due diligence searches to ensure that collecting histories can be traced back to the period before 1970. It is still not clear how an auction-house that had been caught in the spotlight over the sale of the Geddes Collection could, a mere 18 months later, be selling objects that could be traced to the notorious Geneva Freeport.

But Bonhams was not alone. During 2009 three items, apparently identified from images confiscated in the Geneva Freeport, were reportedly seized from a single New York dealer: a Corinthian krater, an Attic pelike and an Apulian situla.

As the June sales approach, we would hope that New York auction-houses would have adopted checking procedures to ensure that they were not going to be handling any material that could be traced back to a certain dealer and his operation in Geneva.

There is an interesting story about an bronze amphora, decorated with handles in the form of a kouros, that appears to have been looted from Casserta in Italy ("Amphore gesucht!"). The piece was said to have been sold to a Munich dealer in February 2004 for 200,000 Euros. It was then sent to Switzerland for restoration.

I have not commented much here about Japanese collections of classical antiquities (but see the Miho Museum). I was thus intrigued to see a Canosan terracotta figure of a woman (lot 110) among the pieces on offer at the June 10, 2010 sale of antiquities at Christie's Rockefeller Plaza. The 3rd century BCE figure is valued at $5000 to $7000. She is "holding a mask of Medusa in her left hand".

The collecting history is simple: "Japanese Private Collection, 1980s".

Who was the original vendor of the piece? What is the name of the anonymous Japanese private collection? Who is the present proprietor?

My attention has been drawn to the Roman marble torso of a youth that is due to be auctioned at Christie's Rockefeller Plaza on June 10, 2010 [sale 2323] [lot 139]. The estimate is $20,000 to $30,000.

The statue is distinctive and the catalogue entry notes the youth is "holding a cockerel in his left arm, his hand at the bird's left wing, its tail feathers curving along the contours of the boy's hip".

For some unexplained reason the Sotheby's appearance is not mentioned in the latest catalogue entry. Who consigned the piece to the original Sotheby's sale in 1992? Why did Christie's omit this part of the collecting history in their latest catalogue?

It would be interesting to see somebody discussing how 4 silver diobols of Tarentum (and their associated box) made their way from a river (of unknown location) to Zurich. What is the "collecting history" for this group?

FEEDJIT Recommended Reading

Feedback

Some Recommended Books

About Me

David Gill is Professor of Archaeological Heritage and Director of Heritage Futures at the University of Suffolk. He was a Rome Scholar at the British School at Rome and a Sir James Knott Fellow at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. He was subsequently part of the Department of Antiquities at the Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge, and Reader in Mediterranean Archaeology, Swansea University. He holds the Archaeological Institute of America's Outstanding Public Service Award (2012).